Heuristic and motivation theory (two short essays for total 400-450 words)

Anonymous
timer Asked: Jun 27th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $5

Question Description

Short essay 1 (200-250 words)
1. Write a brief description of the heuristic and the representativeness heuristic you selected.
2. Then, describe one example in which you used the heuristic you selected and one example in which you used the representativeness heuristic and explain the outcome.
3. Finally, explain why these heuristics, rather than more controlled processes were used.

Short essay 2 (200 words)
1. Write a brief description of a recent goal you set for yourself. (Getting up early)
2. Then, describe two factors which influenced your decision to set the goal.
3. Next, elaborate on the motivational factors within your example and how these may influence controlled vs. automatic processes in pursuit of that goal.
4. Finally, explain three ways goal setting differs from goal striving.

Readings

  • Course Text: Handbook of Social Psychology
    • Chapter 8, "Motivation"
    • Chapter 15, "Judgment and Decision Making"
  • Article: Hayibor, S., & Wasielski, D. M. (2009). Effects of the use of the availability heuristic on ethical decision making in organizations.Journal of Business Ethics, 84(Suppl. 1), 151–165. Retrieved from the Walden Library using the PsycINFO database.
  • Article: Lombardi, M. M., & Choplin, J. M. (2010). Anchoring and estimation of alcohol consumption: Implications for social norm interventions. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 54(2), 53–71. Retrieved from the Walden Library using the PsycINFO database
  • Article: Wickham, P. A. (2003). The representativeness heuristic in judgments involving entrepreneurial success and failure. Management Decision, 41(2), 156–167. Retrieved from the Walden Library using the PsycINFO database

Websites

Optional Resources

  • Article: Haselton, M. G., Bryant, G. A., Wilke, A., Frederick, D. A., Galperin, A., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Moore, T. (2009). Adaptive rationality: An evolutionary perspective on cognitive bias. Social Cognition, 27(5), 733–7 63.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Anchoring and Estimation of Alcohol Consumption: Implications for Social Norm Interventions Megan M. Lombardi and Jessica M. Choplin DePaul University ABSTRACT Three experiments investigated the impact of anchors on students ' estimates of personal alcohol consumption to better understand the role that this form of bias might have in social norm intervention programs. Experiments I and II found that estimates of consumption were susceptible to anchoring effects when an openanswer and a scale-response format were used. Experiment III utilized a design that communicated social norm information as a previous social norm intervention had done andfound that selfreported binge drinking was reduced though actual consumption could not have changed. Implications for the use and assessment of social norm intervention as a component of alcohol education are discussed including the pessimistic possibility that social norm interventions may not be affecting students'actual consumption. 53 54 ANCHORING AND ALCOHOL S ocial norm intervention is an important tool that many colleges and universities across the country have utilized to educate students about their peers' drinking habits. The idea behind implementing a social norm intervention is that dangerous alcohol consumption can be reduced by educating students about the actual norm for their peer group which tends to be much smaller than the norm that students perceive (Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986). Since students' drinking behaviors are often correlated with what is normal for their peer group (Clapp & McDonnell, 2000; Perkins, 1985; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1996), providing students with factual information about their peers' drinking habits is thought to have a direct effect of reducing student consumption (Haines & Spear, 1996). This strategy is often compared to traditional alcohol education methods such as counseling or health information sessions highlighting the dangers of drug and alcohol use (Perkins, 1997), which appear to have little positive effect on students' behaviors (Rosenbaum & Hansen, 1998; Rosenbaum, Flewelling, Bailey, Ringwalt, & Wilkinson, 1994; Tobler, 1986). The research reported liere suggests that studies of social norm intervention effectiveness may be confounded by anchoring effects (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) and so might not be effectively assessing the success of these programs. This pessimistic possibility would imply that social norm interventions might be no more successfiil than traditional alcohol education methods such as counseling or health information sessions in reducing dangerous drinking behaviors. Social norm intervention programs aimed at reducing problematic drinking on college campuses typically consist of a social norm marketing campaign in which counselors provide students with peer norm information via posters, print advertisements, or word of mouth (Gomberg, Kessel Schneider, & DeJong, 2001; Haines & Spear, 1996; Johannessen, Collins, Mills-Novoa, & Glider, 1999; LaBrie, Pedersen, Huchting, Thompson, & Hummer, 2008). Regardless of how the norm information is presented, identical surveys are collected before and after the intervention, which typically lastsfi-oma few weeks (Mattem & Neighbors, 2003) to a few months (Gomberg et al., 2001) or even to a number of years (Haines & Spear, 1996). A main component of many social norm intervention programs, especially those with long intervention duration, is a follow-up with students to ensure that the campaign message and ANCHORING AND ALCOHOL 55 norm information are being attended to and processed. Follow-up procedures sometimes involve offering money or prizes to students who accurately recall the campaign information (Gomberg et al., 2001; Haines & Spear, 1996); or mailing postcards with norm information to students (Mattem & Neighbors, 2003) to reinforce the campaign message and norm information; or involve a sufficient number of posters designed to convey social norm information so that students will not miss the message (LaBrie et al., 2008). At the end of the intervention period counselors determine whether the intervention successfully led to a reduction in norm misperception as well as a reduction in dangerous drinking habits (Haines, 1996; Haines, Perkins, Rice, & Barker, 2005; Johannessen et al., 1999). This assessment of intervention effectiveness is made by comparing students' pre and postintervention survey responses (Haines, 1996; Haines, Perkins, Rice, & Barker, 2005; Johannessen et al., 1999). If students self-report lower levels of" personal alcohol consumption postintervention, researchers conclude that the intervention effectively reduced dangerous drinking behavior on campus. Studies assessing the effectiveness of these programs have shown mixed results. Many of these studies report that drinking behavior is reduced after students have been exposed to the intervention (Gomberg et al., 2001; Haines & Spear, 1996; Johannessen et al., 1999; Mattem & Neighbors, 2003; Neighbors et al., 2004; Perkins & Craig, 2006). In these studies, students who report drinking more than the norm prior to the intervention tend to report drinking less after the intervention. Some studies also report that drinking behavior is increased in some students after they have been exposed to the intervention (Mattem & Neighbors, 2003). These studies show an increase in drinking behavior among students that initially report drinking less than the norm. While both findings may seem consistent with social norm perspectives, which suggest that students adjust their drinking toward the norm, it may be that neither finding is indicative of changes in student consumption. Instead of having the effect of educating students about the norm for their peer group and modifying student drinking behavior, it may be that social norm intervention programs are merely providing students with anchors that they then utilize to estimate their personal consumption (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). If this is the case, then social norm intervention programs might not be 56 ANCHORING AND ALCOHOL effectively assessing the success of their campaigns; the education that students are receiving from social norm interventions may merely be affecting their estimates of alcohol consumption through an anchoring effect rather than changing actual behavior. Furthermore, just as some students may disbelieve the presented norm (Perkins, 2007), which could thereby reduce social norm effects, so some may disbelieve anchor values, which could thereby reduce anchoring effects (Mussweiler, Strack, and Pfeiffer, 2000). The findings typically observed in studies of social norm intervention effectiveness are, therefore, consistent with the possibility that norms act as anchors that bias estimates instead of changing student behavior. In addition, the most common method for assessing students' drinking behavior in these studies is through self-report questionnaires (Gomberg et al., 2001; Haines & Spear, 1996; Johannessen et al, 1999) in which students are asked to report details of their alcohol consumption. Typically, students are asked questions related to the frequency and/or quantity of their alcohol consumption (Gomberg et al., 2001; Haines & Spear, 1996; Johannessen et al., 1999; Mattem & Neighbors, 2003) such as the number of drinks they consume when they 'party' (Haines & Spear, 1996; Johannessen et al., 1999). Responses are most often gathered using frequency scales in which students estimate the number of drinks along a pre-determined scale (Haines & Spear, 1996; Johannessen et al., 1999; Mattem & Neighbors, 2003), although some studies have used an open-answer format in which students provide an estimate of the exact number of drinks they consume (Gomberg et al., 2001). Since the use of self-report increases the likelihood that students would rely on estimation when reporting their alcohol consumption, there are likely to be unintentional biases such as anchoring effects (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) on the participants' responses. Previous researchers noted that self-reporting is vulnerable to social desirability effects whereby responses are biased toward values participants believe are socially desirable (Walsh & Braithwaite, 2008). However, anchoring effects are even more pernicious in that they occur on occasions where social desirability is not a factor, such as when estimating neutral values (Jacowitz & Kahneman, 1995; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) and when the anchor is presented in an irrelevant task (Wilson, Houston, Etling, & Brekke, 1996). Controlling for social desir- ANCHORING AND ALCOHOL 57 ability effects would, therefore, still leave participants vulnerable to anchoring effects. Anchoring is a phenomenon in which people's estimates of quantitative values are biased towards values known as "anchors" (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). An anchoring effect is said to have occurred when the numerical estimates of individuals who are exposed to different anchors are biased toward the anchor (Jacowitz & Kahneman, 1995). Individuals who have been exposed to a higher anchor provide estimates that are closer to that high anchor while those who have been exposed to a low anchor provide estimates that are closer to the low anchor. Tversky and Kahneman (1974) demonstrated these effects in a study in which they asked participants to identify the percentage of United Nations (UN) member nations that were African. Tliey provided their participants with an arbitrary initial percentage (anchor) and asked whether the percentage of UN countries that were in Africa was greater or less than the provided percentage. Participants were then asked to estimate the actual percent of UN nations that were African. The researchers found that participants' responses were biased toward the initial percentage that the participants received. For example, when participants were provided with an initial percentage of 10% they estimated that 25% of UN nations were African whereas they estimated that 45% were African when given 65% as an initial percentage. Simply changing the anchor that is provided can change participants' responses. Anchoring effects have been found to influence many types of estimates including those related to general knowledge such as the year of DaVinci's birth (Strack & Mussweiler, 1997) as well as attributes such as size, age, or amount (Strack & Mussweiler, 1997) and estimates of price (Mussweiler, Strack, & Pfeiffer, 2000). These effects have been found in both laboratory and realworld settings and in cases where anchors were provided by an outside source, such as an experimenter, and cases where anchors were self-generated. Research has shown that anchors are robust enough to influence estimates made several days to one week after the anchor is presented to an individual (Mussweiler, 2001), and the effect is so strong that individuals are affected by it even when they have been pre-wamed of the effect (Wilson, et al., 1996). 58 ANCHORING AND ALCOHOL Research on anchoring effects has also found that the size of the anchoring effect is reduced with greater certainty (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974; Jacowitz and Kahneman, 1995). According to this finding, the more persons know about the value they are trying to estimate, the less they will rely on anchors. Since people have a great deal of knowledge about their personal drinking habits, they might be less vulnerable to anchoring effects when reporting their own drinking behaviors than when reporting less well-lmown dimensions, which may explain why previous research has not explored the relationship between anchoring and reports of alcohol consumption. Individuals may, nevertheless, not know their exact amounts of consumption, which would require them to estimate and leave them vulnerable to anchoring effects. In addition to providing students with numerical norm information that may essentially act as an anchor, social norm intervention programs also seem to hinge on fiequent and powerfial presentation of this information (Perkins, 1997). The most effective studies presented norm information for an extended time frame and utilized some follow-up method (Gomberg et al., 2001; Haines & Spear, 1996) to ensure that the information was frequently available and could be easily recalled from memory. Highly prevalent norm messages and implementation of follow-up procedures increase the likelihood that individuals will recall the norm information when making an estimate of their own alcohol consumption, which is an important element behind the anchoring effect. While anchoring studies have shown that an anchor can persist for a few days to one week after presentation (Mussweiler, 2001), social norm intervention studies assessed alcohol consumption while the norm information was still available in memory. By ensuring that norm information is salient and easy to remember to possibly affect students' actual drinking behaviors, social norm intervention programs also increase the likelihood that the numerical information will be salient and well-remembered enough to affect estimates of drinking behavior over an extended period of time, which would thereby confound any observed effects. In short, social norm intervention studies that have reported successful reductions in college students' alcohol consumption have utilized methodologies that make it difficult to discount the possibility that an anchoring effect is influential in the outcome. Three experiments examined the influence of anchors and ANCHORING AND ALCOHOL 59 social norms that could act as anchors on estimates of personal consumption. Experiments I and II investigated whether anchors influence estimates of personal alcohol consumption despite the possibility that participants have a great deal of knowledge about their own behaviors such that reported consumption would be higher in the high anchor condition than in the low anchor condition. Experiment I utilized an open-answer response format (see Gomberg et al., 2001) while Experiment II utilized a scaleresponse format (see Haines & Spear, 1996; Johannessen et al., 1999; Mattem & Neighbors, 2003). Experiment III presented social norm information in a format that was almost identical to a previous social norm intervention study and assessed reports of binge drinking. In particular, this experiment used a poster adapted directly from Johannessen et al. (1999) to investigate whether exposure to this poster would lower self-reports of binge drinking when there was no difference in actual consumption. It was expected that the results of this experiment would parallel those of studies of social norm intervention effectiveness that demonstrate a reduction in the percentage of students reporting binge drinking after the intervention (Haines & Spear, 1996) albeit without any actual change in binge drinking behavior. It is important to explore the influence of anchors on reports of binge drinking since there are many negative consequences to this drinking pattem (see Ham & Hope, 2003 for a review) which leads many alcohol education programs to specifically focus on reducing this form of drinking. Also, examining the anchoring effect in this context may provide an explanation for a discrepancy between social norm intervention reports of reductions in the percentage of students reporting binge drinking (Haines & Spear, 1996; Johannessen et al., 1999) and reports by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) that indicate binge drinking has continually increased among college students over the past few years (Mitka, 2009). EXPERIMENT I The purpose of Experiment I was to investigate whether social norm information might serve as anchors that affect estimates of alcohol intake when responses are collected using an open-answer response format (see Gomberg et al., 2001). 60 ANCHORING AND ALCOHOL METHOD Participants The participants were 155 (75 male, 80 female) individuals who were approached by the experimenter at public locations on campus and randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Participation was voluntary. Five responses were excluded from the analysis, because they were two standard deviations or more away from the mean for each group, leaving a sample of 150 participants (71 male, 79 female). There were 50 participants in the control group, 50 in the high-anchor group, and 50 in the lowanchor group. Materials The questionnaire consisted of three questions. The first asked whether participants think they drink more than, less than, or approximately the same amount as the average student at the university. The second was an open-ended question that asked how many drinks they consume per week on average. A box at the top of the questionnaire defined one drink as being equal to 4 oz. wine, lOoz. wine cooler, 12 oz. beer, 1 cocktail with 1 oz. of 100 proof liquor or 1 1/4 oz. of 80 proof liquor. The consumption question and definition were worded similarly to the types of questions and definitions utilized in social norm intervention studies (see Haines & Spear, 1996; Gomberg et al., 2001). A third, and final, question asked participants their gender. Three versions of this questionnaire were used to manipulate the type of anchor that each participant received. A high anchor version of the questionnaire included a statement at the top that claimed the norm for students at the university was drinking 19 drinks per week. A low anchor version of the questionnaire included a statement at the top that claimed the norm for students at the university was drinking 1 drink per week. A control version of the questionnaire did not include a norm statement at the top. Norm information for these questionnaires was adapted from previously collected drinking information for students at the university without exposure to norm information. In a pretest, participants reported drinking a mean of 9.89 drinks per week, on average. This number was rounded to 10 drinks and the high and ANCHORING AND ALCOHOL 61 low anchors were developed by adding and subfracting 9 drinks from the mean. Procedure Participants were approached by an experimenter and asked if they would be willing to participate in a study on students' drinking habits. Participants were informed that their responses would be completely anonymous. Participants received one of the three randomly presorted questionnaires and were asked to fill it out as completely and honestly as possible. In order to reduce experimenter effects, the experimenter walked a few feet away from participants while they completed the questionnaire. Participants were also approached individually to ensure that participants in the control condition did not accidentally view the norm message and that peers did not influence estimates. Once they finished the questionnaire, participants placed it in a large manila envelope and retumed it to the researcher. The questionnaire typically took fewer than five minutes to complete. Once the questionnaire was retumed to the researcher, each participant was debriefed to ensure that he or she was aware that the information provided regarding the norm for the average student was fictional, and that it was provided in order to assess its impact on his or her personal consumption estimate. The university institutional review board (IRB) reviewed all procedures prior to data collection. RESULTS A one-way, 3-group analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant difference in the mean estimates of the total number of drinks consumed in an average week for the three conditions {F (2, 147) = 4.07, p = .019). A post hoc Least Squared Differences (LSD) analysis revealed that there was a significant difference between the low (n = 50, mean = 4.28, SD = 4.56) and control {n = 50, mean = 6.90, SD = 6.40) groups. There was also a significant difference between the high (n = 50, mean = 7.44, SD = 6.61) and low groups ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

TutorAR
School: UT Austin

Hi, Find attached the completed work. Feel free to ask for any clarification and editing where need be. Looking forward to working with you again in future. Thank you.
Attached.

Running head: STEREOTYPES

Stereotyping Behavior
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course Title
Date

STEREOTYPES
Blatant stereotypes are more open stereotypes that come out as direct and
offensive (Inzlicht & Kang, 2010). From the video, Karl assumes that Sally is of Asian
descent based on her physical appearance and further thinks that she is from the IT
department again based on her physical appearance. Sally, is actually from the
advertising department despite that she dresses as what some would term ‘like a nerd...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Tutor went the extra mile to help me with this essay. Citations were a bit shaky but I appreciated how well he handled APA styles and how ok he was to change them even though I didnt specify. Got a B+ which is believable and acceptable.

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors